Turnabout Solution

How It Works

This "meta" was a Talking Bastard puzzle designed to progress like the Phoenix Wright series of games. Teams were presented with three testimonies and were expected to present specific physical puzzles that they had solved previously to disprove the witness' testimony.

| |

Solution

The entire script, including what puzzles had to be presented where, is below. Some of the text may have been changed at the last minute or ad-libbed in the actual puzzle, but what is listed below is what each actor was given initially.

For all, unless otherwise indicated: -> Object to any statement: The witness's statement is clearly faulty, your honor. -> Judge: I see nothing wrong, overruled. (etc.) -> Hold it! With irrelevant question (team asks off-script question that's way out there): -> Prosecutor: Objection! Irrelevant! (etc.) -> Judge: I agree. The witness may continue. (etc.) -> Team presents incorrect evidence in response to "can you prove it?" -> Judge: I don't think you've thought this through. Try again. (etc.)

July 22, 5:30 PM District Court Courtroom No. 2

Judge: The court is now in session for the trial of Team -color-.
Judge: Is the prosecution ready to present its case?

Prosecutor: The prosecution is ready, Your Honor.
Lawyer: The defense is ready, Your Honor.

Judge: Very well. Prosecutor Edgeworth, please give the court your opening statement.

Prosecutor: Thank you, Your Honor. The defendants, Team -color-, were at the scene of the crime.
Prosecutor: The prosecution has evidence placing the defendants at the scene, and we have a statement from a witness who saw them do it.

Judge: Hmm, I see. Thank you, Edgeworth, please call your first witness.

Prosecutor: The prosecution calls Detective Calvin Miller.

::Enter Gumshoe::

Prosecutor: Name and occupation.

Gumshoe: Calvin Miller, private gumshoe.

Prosecutor: Detective Miller was the primary investigator for this case. Witness, please testify about the witnesses sworn statement.

Testimony:
1: Team -color- was spotted by the victim's neighbor.
2: The neighbor saw an unmarked van that appeared to have something glowing inside.
3: The defendants had just come from a disc golf course
4: They still had a glowing Frisbee that I had given them earlier.
5: From what police and myself could tell from the crime scene, the victim let the murderers inside
6: Once inside, the murderers bludgeoned the victim when he was looking away.

Judge: Very well. Mr. Wright, you may begin your cross-examination.

Cross-Examination 1: -- The 'Facts' of the Case --
Statement 1: Team -color- was spotted by the victim's neighbor.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! The murder was late at night, why would a neighbor have noticed anything?
-> Gumshoe: The neighbor was woken up by some loud music. They said it sounded like someone couldn't decide what to listen to.
-> Prosecutor: And what did the neighbor see?

Statement 2: The neighbor saw an unmarked van that appeared to have something glowing inside.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! What do you mean, glowing?
-> Gumshoe: The neighbor clearly saw something glowing sweeping through the rainbow coming from
the van. (add statement 2a)
-> Judge: That seems like an important detail. Please add that to your testimony.

Statement 2a: The neighbor clearly saw something glowing sweeping through the rainbow coming from the van.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! How could they be so certain what colors were glowing?
-> Prosecutor: Objection!
-> Judge: Agreed, witness, please continue your testimony.

Statement 3: The defendants had just come from a disc golf course
-> Lawyer: Hold it! How do you know where they had come from?
-> Gumshoe: We tracked them via their phone calls to Gumshoe Unlimited.
-> Prosecutor: Please continue.

Statement 4: They still had a glowing Frisbee that I had given them earlier.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! Frisbee? Why did you give them that?
-> Gumshoe: Well, they were at a disc golf course early that day, it seemed like an
appropriate gift!
-> Prosecutor: Objection! I find this highly� objectionable.
-> Judge: � Objection overruled. Witness, please continue.

Statement 5: From what police and myself could tell from the crime scene, the victim let
the murderers inside
-> Lawyer: Hold it! How could you tell this?!
-> Gumshoe: There were no signs of breaking and entering
-> Prosecutor: Didn't you do any research Wright? Go on, witness.

Statement 6: Once inside, the murderers bludgeoned the victim in the back when he was looking away.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! The one witness couldn't have seen this? How do you know what happened?
-> Gumshoe: There is nothing suggesting a struggle; I assume the team was disguised as
repairmen or something, it makes sense that the victim would turn his back to lead
them to whatever they were there to repair.

-> Judge: Yes, yes, this all sounds very convincing.
-> Lawyer: This should be easy; look at the evidence, there should be a contradiction in there.

-------------------------CORRECT OBJECTION-----------------------

-> Present Frisbee to Statement 2a

In-between:
Lawyer (if teams are quiet): Objection! Your honor, the team's Frisbee is clearly glowing a different color than what the witness claims was observed!
Judge: Hmm... that does appear the case.
Prosecutor: Objection! That hardly seems relevant; no one else would be carrying a glowing Frisbee!
Gumshoe: The neighbor must have been confused! Besides, there's even more decisive evidence against the teams!
Judge: Hmm. Then please testify about this decisive evidence.

1: There was even more decisive evidence inside the victim's house!
2: The neighbor testified that the team was let inside the house by the victim.
3: Inside the victim's house, several Gumshoe Unlimited brand spring-loaded snakes were found.
4: The police collected these and currently have them in an evidence locker.
5: Each set of snakes bears a unique set of markings.
6: The snakes at the crime scene could have only belonged to team -color-

Judge: Ahhhh� this is very decisive indeed. I think I could reach a verdict right now.
Prosecutor: Thank you, your honor.
Lawyer: What about my cross-examination?
Judge: I don't see any room for contradiction here, but the defense may proceed.

Cross-Examination 2: -- Decisive Evidence --
Statement 1: There was even more decisive evidence inside the victim's house!
-> Lawyer: Hold it! What is this evidence?
-> Prosecutor: Objection! He's getting to what the evidence is.
-> Judge: Yes, please stop badgering the witness. Witness, please continue.

Statement 2: The neighbor testified that the team was let inside the house by the victim.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! Why would the victim let them inside?
-> Gumshoe: I'm not sure why he let them inside; they were probably disguised.
-> Prosecutor: This is irrelevant; all that is important is that they were inside.
-> Judge: Agreed. Can you confirm that the defendants were inside?

Statement 3: Inside the victim's house, several Gumshoe Unlimited brand spring-loaded snakes were found.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! Why in the world do you give them snakes?
-> Gumshoe: Aspiring gumshoes are given 5 canned snakes on their first assignment. It's sort of a joke.
-> Prosecutor: Objection! I don't see the point of this line of questioning. The defense is obviously grasping at straws.
-> Judge: I agree. witness, please continue.

Statement 4: The police collected these and currently have them in an evidence locker.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! In an evidence locker? You mean they're not here?
-> Gumshoe: That's right! They're safely in police custody!
-> Prosecutor: Objection! Where the snakes are now is irrelevant.
-> Judge: Yes, I don't see where you're going with this. Continue, witness.

Statement 5: Each set of snakes bears a unique set of markings.
-> Lawyer: Hold it! What do you mean, unique set of markings?
-> Gumshoe: Each snake has a special set of stripes. Like a bar code.
-> Prosecutor: And who did that bar code link to?

Statement 6: The snakes at the crime scene could have only belonged to team -color-
-> Lawyer: Hold it! How could you possibly prove that?
-> Gumshoe: I keep a database of each pattern for snakes so that they're easily tracked.
Only I know what the patterns are.

Judge: Yes yes. I don't see room for anything other than a guilty verdict here. Does the defense have anything further to say?
Lawyer: You need to pay close attention to what he's saying; there must be a contradiction in there!

->Present Snakes to statement 4

In-between:
Lawyer: (if needed) Objection! Your honor, Team -color- clearly still has the snakes they were given by Detective Miller.
Prosecutor: Ob�. Objection! What is going on here?
Gumshoe: That's not possible!
Judge: What is the meaning of this?!
Lawyer: It clearly implies that someone planted this evidence.
Prosecutor: Who could have done that? As the witness stated, only he knew what they were!
Gumshoe: Hey! It wasn't me! Why would I kill Hank? I have no motive!
Prosecutor: This is correct. Plus, the defendants have a clear motive.
Judge: Then please testify about this motive.

1: The kids were working for Jimmy!
2: He was looking to settle a debt and put out a hit on Hank!
3: Those kids made out with a Hank's lockbox! We found it on them when they were arrested!

Judge: Hmm� things are looking very bad for the defense. Please begin your cross-examination.

Cross-Examination 3:
1: The kids were working for Jimmy!
-> Lawyer: Hold it! You don't have any proof of that!
-> Prosecutor: Objection! Your honor, we've already been over this. The defense is wasting our time.
-> Gumshoe: Didn't you see the photo earlier? Those kids were peons for Jimmy!
-> Judge: Yes, we've been through this. Please continue.

2: He was looking to settle a debt and put out a hit on Hank!
-> Lawyer: Hold it! A debt?
-> Gumshoe: It seems Hank wasn't too bright, and managed to get tied up with one of Jimmy's girls.
-> Prosecutor: Please go on.

3: Those kids made out with a Hank's lockbox! We found it on them when they were arrested!
-> Lawyer: Hold it! What kind of box are you talking about?
-> Gumshoe: Hank had a small box with a small fortune hidden inside of it! It looked like a toolbox.
-> Gumshoe: Virginia told me all about it!

Lawyer: Hmm.. This testimony is short, so there's not a lot of room for contradictions. Do you have anything that contradicts what he just said?

-> Present Toolbox or Affidavit to statement 3.

In-between:
Lawyer: (if needed) Your honor, the box that Hank "owned" clearly has a Gumshoe Unlimited logo on it.
Lawyer: This box was given to my client prior to the murder, and is another case of the witness planting evidence!
Prosecutor: Objection! This is pure speculation!
Judge: Overruled, the defense may continue. What do you claim really happened?

Patented Phoenix Wright style BS
Lawyer: Here's what I think really happened. The witness was the one who murdered Hank!
Lawyer: Before the murder he sent team -color- on some pointless errands, all the while planting evidence on them.
Lawyer: He made sure they would come in contact with Jimmy to establish a "motive" and gave them things that would clearly stand out.
Lawyer: Shortly before the murder, he drove to the victim's house in an unmarked van.
Lawyer: Disguised, the victim let him inside. Once inside, he bludgeoned the victim to death.
Lawyer: He then left copies of the snakes he gave to the team to leave something that "only they could have."
Lawyer: Next he led them to the scene of the crime!

Prosecutor: Objection! Why? Detective Miller had no motive to kill!
Lawyer: Of course he had a motive... it was....

Lawyer: To teams: Who or what could have possibly made the witness want to kill Hank?

--> If teams don't get it at first, narrow it down to "I think he must have been hired to do it... but who would have hired him?"
--> Don't let them present something else.

-> "present" Dame

Lawyer: The witness was paid to kill the victim by Hank's wife Virginia! She had a clear motive thanks to Hank using his small fortune to pay off Jimmy Fingers!

Gumshoe: Kwaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Gumshoe: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Gumshoe: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Gumshoe: aaaaaaaaaaaaahh!?

Gumshoe: How could you kids do this to me?

Judge: Order! Order! Bailiff, take this man away.
Judge: Alright, I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but I think it's clear that team -color- is not responsible for the murder.
Judge: I find the defendants

NOT GUILTY-

bailiff or someone gives them a note instructing them to go to Game Control to party

Judge: Very well. Prosecutor Edgeworth, please give the court your opening statement.

Judge: Hmm, I see. Thank you, Edgeworth, please call your first witness.

Prosecutor: The prosecution calls Detective Calvin Miller.

::Enter Gumshoe::

Prosecutor: Name and occupation.

Gumshoe: Calvin Miller, private gumshoe.

Prosecutor: Detective Miller was the primary investigator for this case. Witness, please testify about the witnesses sworn statement.

Judge: Very well. Mr. Wright, you may begin your cross-examination.

-> Judge: Yes, yes, this all sounds very convincing.
-> Lawyer: This should be easy; look at the evidence, there should be a contradiction in there.

-------------------------CORRECT OBJECTION-----------------------

-> Present Frisbee to Statement 2a

---------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

->Present Snakes to statement 4

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1: The kids were working for Jimmy!
2: He was looking to settle a debt and put out a hit on Hank!
3: Those kids made out with a Hank's lockbox! We found it on them when they were arrested!

Judge: Hmm� things are looking very bad for the defense. Please begin your cross-examination.

Lawyer: Hmm.. This testimony is short, so there's not a lot of room for contradictions. Do you have anything that contradicts what he just said?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-> Present Toolbox or Affidavit to statement 3.

Prosecutor: Objection! Why? Detective Miller had no motive to kill!
Lawyer: Of course he had a motive... it was....

Lawyer: To teams: Who or what could have possibly made the witness want to kill Hank?

--> If teams don't get it at first, narrow it down to "I think he must have been hired to do it... but who would have hired him?"
--> Don't let them present something else.

-> "present" Dame

Lawyer: The witness was paid to kill the victim by Hank's wife Virginia! She had a clear motive thanks to Hank using his small fortune to pay off Jimmy Fingers!

Gumshoe: Kwaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Gumshoe: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Gumshoe: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Gumshoe: aaaaaaaaaaaaahh!?

Gumshoe: How could you kids do this to me?

**bailiff or someone gives them a note instructing them to go to Game Control to party**

Design Notes

Much like my other puzzle, this puzzle came about as a joke in the middle of a GC meeting. I had started playing Phoenix Wright around Christmas, and at some point in the year we all started yelling "Objection!" in meetings.

The idea came up of putting the teams through court to prove the guilt of the gumshoe, which originally started off with a traditional meta where the final piece of evidence would be something the teams put together with extra data given to them in each vignette. (I had joked about Phoenix Wright at this point, but thought it would stay just thath) This did not playtest very well in the beta with the most telling comment being &ldqui;This feels like a meta for the sake of a meta." At this point Nick brought up the possibility of actually doing the Phoenix Wright puzzle several of us had joked about, and I volunteered to make it happen.

There's not much to add from there; over the course of the year I slowly scripted out the meta. Coming up with ways to make three puzzles "prove" that the gumshoe did the murder was a huge pain, but I think we managed to come up with something that's about as coherent as anything else in the Phoenix Wright games.

GC Notes

The big goal with the meta this year was to have something either fun or amusing, since it came after two hub puzzles, as well as something on the easier side. The last few years have had us with teams nearly comatose that need our help to hand-hold them through whatever we have for a meta. This year I hoped to fix that, and while some teams had a little bit of trouble with bits of the case, I think the meta did what we needed and wanted it to do for the most part.

Most teams blew through the case, and much to my disappointment, didn't press every statement just to see what would happen. I thought the teams that were familiar with Phoenix Wright would try to screw with us more to see how prepared we were, but I think most teams were pretty tired at that point.

Finally, I think it's worth mentioning a nice easter egg that I think went unnoticed. All of the puzzles that were used in the meta were on the NEO puzzle (the MAD magazine-style fold puzzle). This was intended and we originally thought of trying to use this in the meta somehow. We decided against it and thought it might be something fun for teams to notice on their own.